    [Senate Hearing 119-286]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-286

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 22, 2025

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-119-49

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-746                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     2
    Kennedy, Hon. John...............................................     4
    Moody, Hon. Ashley...............................................     5

                                    NOMINEES

    Crain, William J.................................................     8
        Questionnaire................................................    37
        Responses to written questions...............................   113

    Duva, A. Tysen...................................................     6
        Questionnaire................................................   169
        Responses to written questions...............................   179
        Additional materials.........................................   235

    Van Hook, Alexander C............................................     9
        Questionnaire................................................   236
        Responses to written questions...............................   267

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   311

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
    Room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Lee, Cruz, Hawley,
    Kennedy, Blackburn, Britt, Moody, Durbin, Whitehouse,
    Blumenthal, Hirono, Welch, and Schiff.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Good morning. We welcome everyone.
        Our panel features A. Tysen Duva, nominated to be assistant
    attorney general, Criminal Division; two district court
    nominees, Justice William J. Crain, Eastern District,
    Louisiana; Alexander Van Hook, Western District of Louisiana.
    Senators Kennedy and Moody will give introductions in a moment.
    In the meantime, I'd speak about Mr. Duva.
        He has been a Federal prosecutor for nearly 2 decades in
    the U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District, Florida. He has
    extensive experience conducting investigations, prosecuting a
    wide array of criminal offenses. These include drug
    trafficking, violent crime, public corruption, fraud, and
    illegal immigration. Mr. Duva has prosecuted hundreds of cases,
    he has tried 22 to verdict, and he has received numerous awards
    for his efforts from the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as
    Federal agencies, including Department of Homeland Security,
    ICE, IRS, FBI, and Secret Service. Mr. Duva's success in
    prosecuting difficult cases certainly commands respect, and his
    real-world experience will be an asset to the Criminal
    Division.
        Justice Crain has been an attorney for 4 decades, served as
    a judge for 15 years across every level of Louisiana State
    courts, spent 3 years as trial judge for Louisiana's Second
    Judicial District. Then he moved into appeals, serving on
    Louisiana's First Circuit Court of Appeals for 6 years. Since
    2019, Justice Crain has served as the Supreme Court of
    Louisiana. As a jurist, Justice Crain has presided over and
    authored hundreds of judicial opinions. With his extensive
    experience as a lawyer and judge, he is extremely ``well
    qualified'' to serve on the Federal branch.
        Mr. Van Hook is also ``well qualified.'' He clerked for
    judges on the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit and on
    the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
    Since then, Mr. Van Hook spent 25 years as a Federal prosecutor
    in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District, Louisiana. He
    has served as an assistant U.S. attorney, the deputy criminal
    chief, and multiple stints as first assistant and acting U.S.
    attorney in that office. Mr. Van Hook has extensive courtroom
    experience, litigating hundreds of cases, and trying 18 cases
    to verdict before a jury. He also clearly has the experience to
    make a fine judge.
        We will hear more about our nominees in a moment. I look
    forward to hearing from each of them today.
        Before I turn to Senator Durbin, I will ask everyone to
    keep their questions to 5 minutes. I will also announce that
    after my round of questioning, Senator Kennedy has agreed to
    preside over the remainder of the hearing.
        Senator Durbin.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley.
        Today, we will hear from two judicial nominees and Andrew
    Tysen Duva, nominated to be assistant attorney general for the
    Criminal Division. Mr. Duva, I appreciate you coming by my
    office this week.
        Criminal Division prosecutors handle some of the most
    complex and important cases in this country, including public
    corruption, child exploitation, and child sexual abuse
    material, white collar crime, money laundering, violent crime.
    The list is long. This mission used to have bipartisan support,
    but the Trump Administration has fired, fired dozens of
    prosecutors simply because they prosecuted January 6 rioters,
    and he has gutted the key Criminal Division components. I
    discussed this with Mr. Duva.
        Look at the Public Integrity Section, also known as PIN,
    which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting public
    corruption cases. In March 2025, the Justice Department struck
    a corrupt bargain to conditionally dismiss charges against New
    York City Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for his cooperation with
    the Trump Administration on the deportation campaign. In
    response, several prosecutors resigned from the Department of
    Justice, including the U.S. attorney herself. A staunch
    conservative, she clerked for Justice Scalia and was appointed
    to her position by President Trump. She quit.
        According to public reporting and credible whistleblowers,
    then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who is now a
    circuit judge, convened a meeting where he ordered PIN
    prosecutors to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against
    Adams or face unspecified consequences. At the end of the Biden
    Administration, there were 30 prosecutors in this Section of
    Public Integrity. Now, the section has two, two.
        There is a longstanding requirement that prosecution of
    public officials be reviewed by PIN career prosecutors to
    ensure they are not politically motivated. Attorney General
    Bondi has reportedly eliminated this requirement. At the same
    time, illegally appointed interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba is
    bragging that she will use her position as interim U.S.
    Attorney in New Jersey ``to turn New Jersey red,'' while she
    prosecutes a sitting Member of Congress.
        Mr. Duva, in our meeting this week, you told me you found
    value in collaborating with PIN attorneys on public corruption
    cases you prosecuted, and you had at least one that was
    noteworthy in a trial followed nationwide. So I want to hear
    from you when the questioning starts how you will rebuild this
    section, the Public Integrity Section, and restore its
    authority should you be confirmed.
        I have heard the common refrain from Trump Administration
    and its supporters that purging DOJ prosecutors will have no
    effect on fighting crime. The numbers tell a different story in
    the first year of the second Trump Presidency. A recent Reuters
    article reported that the number of drug prosecutions under the
    Trump Administration has dropped to the lowest level in
    decades. The number of money laundering prosecutions has
    dropped by 24 percent. Nor are gun crimes exempt. Felon-in-
    possession-of-firearm prosecutions have fallen 5 percent this
    year.
        I want to hear from Mr. Duva how he is going to reverse
    these troubling trends and how he can continue to divert
    resources from the Department of Justice to the mass
    deportation campaign without facing more statistics like these.
    Where are the Justice Department resources going if they are
    not going after narcotics and crimes like that? President
    Trump's mass deportation campaign.
        This isn't about reducing crime. Despite President Trump's
    claims that he is going after the worst of the worst--oh, you
    heard the litany: rapists, murderers, terrorists, criminally
    insane, sexual predators--it turns out that just days ago, one
    of my constituents, Maria Greeley, was detained by ICE agents
    despite carrying documentation proving she was an American
    citizen. The agents questioned the validity of her passport.
    And do you know why? She looked Hispanic, and she had the name
    Greeley. Their antennas went up. She must not be who she says
    she is. And she said later on, I am a Latina. I am a service
    worker. I fit the description of what they are looking for over
    and over.
        Let's be clear about what is happening in Chicago.
    President Trump is abusing his power by shifting Justice
    Department resources away from keeping American families safe
    to fuel his mass deportation campaign. He is deploying Federal
    law enforcement to zip tie children and tear gas peaceful
    protesters and journalists for political theater, not for
    public safety.
        We need Justice Department officials who will honor their
    oath, and I hope that the three of you, if you have that
    opportunity, will do just that.
        Let me close with a point that has been made repeatedly in
    this Committee. There are some Members of this Committee who
    believe that violence in the public place for elected officials
    is inspired by the left. Let me say at the outset, I am opposed
    to violence against public officials and others regardless of
    whether it comes from the right or the left. And I don't
    believe it is simply the province of the left to do these
    excessive and unacceptable things.
        Yesterday, Christopher Moynihan was rearrested. Christopher
    Moynihan had been prosecuted for breaking into the Capitol on
    January 6 and admitted that he rifled through the desk on the
    Senate floor of Senator Cruz. What happened was he was traced
    by local police to be involved in some threats against the life
    of Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries. This is what Mr.
    Moynihan said. ``I cannot allow this terrorist to continue.
    Even if I am hated, Hakeem Jeffries must be eliminated.'' That
    was a man who received a full and unconditional pardon by
    President Trump earlier this year. He had been arrested for his
    activities on January 6.
        The point I am trying to make and want to make clearly,
    violence, whatever the source, right or left, should not be
    tolerated by anyone on this Committee. And to say it simply
    from one side or the other is naive and doesn't reflect the
    reality of the world we live in.
        I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Before I call on Senator Kennedy and Senator Moody, Senator
    Cassidy asked me if I would say that he is unable to be here
    this morning because of another hearing in a Committee that he
    Chairs, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee. He
    wanted me to communicate that he supports both nominees and
    that he wishes them well at their hearing today.
        Senator Kennedy.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is my pleasure to introduce Justice Crain and U.S.
    Attorney Van Hook. Everybody on this Committee, those here,
    those not here, have read their resumes, and any fair-minded
    person can look at their resumes and see that they are
    eminently qualified. I will start with Justice Crain. He's done
    it all, finished LSU Law School, joined, eventually became a
    partner at one of the most prominent law firms in our State.
    After 20 years, he then was asked by the people to serve on the
    district court bench. He did. He was then asked by our people
    to serve on the State court of appeal. He did that. And now he
    is a member of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
        Mr. Van Hook went to Centenary, LSU Law School, clerked for
    a very prominent judge on the Fifth Circuit, clerked for
    District Court Judge Stagg, whose seat he will be taking. He
    spent his career, his entire career, 25 years in the U.S.
    Attorney's Office, handled 600 cases.
        Now, it is impressive--it is no secret that Senators have a
    lot to say about who the President nominates to these jobs,
    especially on the district court. And I, for one, want to keep
    it that way, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for your courage
    with respect to Democrat and Republican Presidents for standing
    your ground on the blue slip, which I support unconditionally.
        So it is no secret that we send the names to the White
    House. And I've sent names--during the Trump Administration,
    I've sent Democrats names to the White House. Now, they didn't
    pick them, but I sent them. And I don't really look at politics
    that much when I pick Federal judges. I will tell you what I
    look at. I look at judgment. First, of course, you want to make
    sure that an attorney is qualified. I try to pick lawyers that
    everyone in the community will look at and go, well, you know,
    I don't know him that well, but man, you know, he is a lawyer's
    lawyer. That is the way we have always done it on the Federal
    bench and the way we ought to continue doing it. So that is my
    initial witness test. But then I look for judgment. And that's
    why Bill and I suggested to the President Will and Alex.
        You will notice today that they have coolly unflappable
    demeanors. And underneath those coolly unflappable demeanors is
    a coolly unflappable demeanor. That's just the way they are.
    They've seen it all. They've heard it all. They're fair. Their
    just interested in resolving cases. And they're not that
    interested in politics. To my knowledge, neither one of them
    are interested at all. They keep the simple stuff simple, and
    they just try to do what they think is right.
        Now, I am biased because I nominated them. But if you knew
    them, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, and my colleagues,
    like I knew them, you would agree with me. And I am just so
    honored that they are here today with their families. And I am
    looking forward to this hearing.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Moody.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY MOODY,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Senator Moody. Thank you so much.
        It is really wonderful to be here this morning. As a former
    assistant United States attorney, Federal prosecutor out of
    Jacksonville, Florida, myself decades ago, I have the unique
    pleasure of today introducing President Trump's nominee to lead
    the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Mr. Tysen Duva.
    He is also joined by his family, many I know from way back
    when. And it is so good to see you today, and I know he
    appreciates your support. These hearings are challenging
    sometimes, and they should be, and it is great to know you have
    people at your back that you love and that support you.
        It is very good to see my fellow Floridians and great to
    see a fellow Floridian nominated for this position. He is
    indeed an example of prosecutorial excellence. He earned his
    bachelor's degree from the University of North Florida and
    graduated with his law degree from my alma mater, the
    University of Florida College of Law. Go Gators. I am trying to
    see in my first year as a United States Senator how many times
    I can say ``Go Gators'' on the record. It is looking good, and
    thank you for giving me another opportunity.
        After law school, he spent several years working as an
    attorney at private law firms before clerking for a United
    States district judge, who I also got to practice in front of
    as a prosecutor, Judge Timothy Corrigan. Once that clerkship
    ended, he joined the United States Attorney's Office in
    Jacksonville where he has served for 18 years since.
        His nomination to lead the Criminal Division at the
    Department of Justice is a direct reflection of what Attorney
    General Bondi said from the start. DOJ under President Trump
    and under her leadership as attorney general is going to return
    to its core mission. That is enforcing the laws and protecting
    the public. Having a prosecutor with nearly 2 decades of
    experience at the helm of DOJ's Criminal Division demonstrates
    the Trump Administration's commitment to making America safe
    again.
        It has a solemn duty at the end of the day to protect
    Americans and their safety so that we can do our job as a
    government and protect their rights. It is not a matter of if
    an American citizen lives in a red conservative town or a blue
    liberal city. Everyone deserves protection and people in
    positions that will work every day with diligence to make sure
    that they are doing their jobs and enforcing our laws. And that
    is why along that vein, as the DOJ returns to its core mission,
    they are putting people at the helm that can help them do that.
    And that is why it is critical that we have lawyers like Mr.
    Duva in positions like this one.
        One of the highest honors in my legal career was when I was
    a Federal prosecutor and had the privilege of standing up in
    court and saying my name is Ashley Moody, and I represent the
    United States of America. I know Mr. Duva said that same thing
    and did that proudly and took that responsibility very
    seriously, and he will do so again at the helm of DOJ's
    Criminal Division.
        From young new USAs to the leader of the Department's
    Criminal Division to now the Attorney General of the United
    States herself, President Trump is doing a fantastic job of
    bringing in patriots who believe in a nation under a rule of
    law and are entrusted now with DOJ's awesome powers and
    responsibility.
        It is my honor to introduce Mr. Duva, who I know will bring
    his decades of experience of protecting others, standing as a
    guardian between chaos and order, crime and peace. He will
    bring that to the helm of DOJ's Criminal Justice Division, and
    I cannot wait to see you get started.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Kennedy and Senator
    Moody.
        I would like to administer oath now.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. They have all said affirmative answer to
    that. Please sit.
        Now it is our tradition for you to introduce family and
    friends and then give your opening statement. I will start with
    Mr. Duva.

     STATEMENT OF A. TYSEN DUVA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES
                       ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and thank you,
    Senator Moody, for that kind introduction. And thank you,
    Ranking Member Durbin, as well.
        It is an honor to sit before the esteemed Senate Judiciary
    Committee to answer questions about my nomination as assistant
    attorney general, head of the Criminal Division. I never
    anticipated that I would have this opportunity, and I am deeply
    thankful.
        First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
    Everything I have above nothing comes from Him. I have not
    always pleased Him. In fact, I have stumbled many times. He has
    always forgiven me and welcomed me back.
        I have many people I must thank and recognize, so I
    appreciate you bearing with me for just a few minutes.
        I thank President Trump, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,
    Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd
    Blanche, White House Counsel David Warrington, and head of the
    Personnel Office Sergio Gor for supporting my nomination.
        Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I will use my
    experience as a prosecutor for almost 2 decades to do what I
    have always done, use my judgment, follow the rule of law and
    do good for the American people.
        I'd like to introduce those in attendance, my wife, Julie;
    my brother, Brian. I'm going to talk about them in a moment. My
    friend, Charlie Meyer from Oceanside, California; my friends,
    Randy Jenkins and Chad King, from Gainesville, Florida. So
    we're going coast to coast before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee today.
        For over 49 years, I've had the love and guidance of
    family, mentors, and friends. To my wife, Julie, I love you
    deeply, and I'm deeply thankful for you. During our years
    together, you have always handled the great times and the
    challenges, especially over the last few years, with your
    classic elegance, grace, and iron will. You are the most
    impressive person I have ever known and the best prosecutor I
    have ever seen. You served the DOJ for 27 years with great
    distinction. Many times you tell me, ``I wish I could still do
    it.'' I carry that with me daily.
        To our children, they were too busy to be here. They said,
    ``Dad, you'll be fine, just go it alone.'' To our children,
    Emma, Zach, Ty, and Gavin, you are all extremely impressive and
    uniquely talented. It is and has been the privilege of my life
    to parent you through the highs and lows, keep God as your
    guidepost, and never back down from the challenges in front of
    you. I'm so proud of each of you.
        To my parents, Tony and Diana Duva, thank you for parenting
    me. This is a fortune that sadly so many do not have. Together,
    you weathered life's storms and remained focused on your
    commitment to raising and guiding Brian and me. I love you
    dearly.
        To my brother Brian and sister-in-law Ingrid, thank you for
    raising and guiding me. Brian, you were the best older brother
    and mentor a younger brother could have. Ever since I could
    form memories, I wanted to be you. I still do. That is the kind
    of man, brother, and mentor you are.
        And I have some important mentors to thank, and then I'll
    wrap up. To my college baseball coach at the University of
    North Florida, the legendary Jack Dusty Rhodes, thank you for
    taking in a walk-on like me and giving me a chance. You taught
    me the difference between winning and losing and how to take a
    tough and disciplined approach to baseball and, more
    importantly, to life.
        To George E. ``Buddy'' Schulz, when I first met you, I knew
    you were truly unique. You were one of the most elite trial
    lawyers in the country, and most importantly, you're a great
    man. Thank you for guiding me.
        To the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan and career law clerk
    Suzanne Wiseman, you gave me an opportunity as a young lawyer
    to serve as a law clerk. It was invaluable. You both embody the
    legal principles of the reasonable jurist for all.
        To James R. Klindt, as the United States attorney in the
    Middle District of Florida in March 2007, you interviewed me
    and gave me the opportunity of a lifetime to become an
    assistant United States attorney. When I started in the office
    in August 2007, I came into an elite culture of professional
    expectation and opportunity for those who earned it.
        To the many law enforcement officers and prosecutors that
    I've worked with over the years, thank you for your commitment,
    experience, skill, and partnership. As a team, we made great
    and impactful cases for the citizens of our country. That is
    the calling, and we answered it.
        Senators, I sit before you today for your consideration as
    a career public servant in the United States Department of
    Justice. I am an experienced Federal prosecutor. I have done
    the job the right way. As I said, it is a calling. Throughout
    my AUSA career, my prosecution teams represented the United
    States while marshaling complex investigations and charging
    decisions, litigating in Federal court and trying cases.
        Through the wins and losses, I adhered to the rule of law.
    The job of a prosecutor is clear, do the right thing for the
    right reasons. If confirmed, I will bring that same approach to
    the Criminal Division. I look forward to working with its great
    and many public servants, many of whom I have worked with
    already. What we public servants have is our prosecutorial
    integrity. I will protect it.
        I look forward to answering your questions today, and my
    goal is to earn bipartisan support during this advice and
    consent phase. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. CRAIN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
      STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

        Judge Crain. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking--got it,
    got it, looking for the red light.
        Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    Members of the committee, for holding this hearing and giving
    us the opportunity to be here today.
        I want to thank President Trump for this nomination. It is
    truly the professional honor of a lifetime to be nominated to
    serve my country on the district court--Federal district court.
        I want to thank my hometown--or hometown--our home State
    Senators, Senator Cassidy and Senator Kennedy. Thank you,
    Senator Kennedy, particularly for the kind remarks that you
    made and for the assistance that you've given and support that
    you've given throughout this process.
        I want to thank my father, who is not here today but is
    watching on TV. My dad was the second youngest judge ever
    elected in the State of Louisiana, and he's been a model for me
    in every aspect of my life.
        My mother was my greatest defender, and I choose that word
    carefully. I never did anything wrong in my mother's eyes. We
    lost my mother about a month ago on September the 5th. I will
    tell you that there's a feeling with me today--and you would
    have to have known her--that she has some hand in my presence
    here today. She would be immensely proud, and we miss her very,
    very deeply.
        I want to thank my siblings, my sister, my oldest sister,
    Sheila; my brother, Wes; and my sister, Emily, for all the
    support that they have given me as well.
        I want to thank a couple of people that I practice law
    with. My senior partner in the law firm of Jones Fussell where
    I practiced for 22 years, Bill Jones. He taught me the--how to
    practice law. The attention to details that he taught me is
    something that I have used as both a practicing lawyer and as a
    judge.
        And two of my closest friends were my law partners, Jeff
    Schoen and Wayne Buras, tremendous friends.
        I also want to specifically give attention to two people on
    my staff because they have been there--been with me, one for
    just about my whole life, Lee Gillespie, who was a law clerk
    for me. Lee and I grew up together. We were roommates in
    college. I went on to practice law. He finished law school
    number three in his class at LSU, joined me as a law partner
    for 17 years, and then has served as a law clerk for me at the
    court of appeal and at the Supreme Court as my senior law
    clerk. He is simply the best, and I appreciate everything that
    Lee has done and been there for me.
        I also want to specifically thank and acknowledge Janelle
    Baton. Janelle was 16 years old and an intern in our--in the
    law office that I've joined when I got out of law school. A
    year into my practice, I needed an administrative assistant/
    secretary, and I knew the one that I needed, and I hired
    Janelle. And she has been the only secretary and administrative
    assistant that I've had through my nearly 40 years of
    practicing law and being a judge.
        Last, but certainly not by level of importance, I want to
    acknowledge my kids and their mother, Cheri. My children are
    grown and have successful careers in their own right. William,
    my oldest, has given me my two grandchildren, Parker and
    Collins; Matthew and Michael, twin boys; and my youngest is
    Elizabeth. Nothing that I do in any endeavor, nothing that I do
    will I take more pride in than what they do, and I am very
    grateful and thankful for them.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.

    STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
      STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Van Hook. So I would like to thank President Trump for
    this nomination and Senator Kennedy and Senator Cassidy for
    their support. Senator Kennedy, thank you for your kind
    introduction. I'd also like to thank Chairman Grassley and
    Ranking Member Durbin for scheduling this hearing today and all
    of you for considering my nomination.
        Here today with me are my wife of 20 years, Tricia, our
    children, Kate and John. I couldn't be more proud of Kate and
    John. They inspire me every day to be a better person. I'll
    give all the credit for their good qualities to Tricia. Tricia
    is not only my wife of 20 years, my best friend, she's also a
    talented lawyer in her own right. She and I both clerked
    together for Judge Tom Stagg, and as Senator Kennedy mentioned
    that I'll be in his court if I'm fortunate enough to be
    confirmed. And he was our mentor, friend, and unparalleled
    judicial icon in Louisiana.
        I have some friends here with me today, all of whom I've
    known for almost 30 years or over 30 years and one of whom I've
    known for over 50 and could not be more grateful for them being
    here with me today.
        Watching from home are my mother, Jane, and my stepfather,
    Patrick. They have both sacrificed so much for me. They've
    given me their unconditional love and support, and I appreciate
    all that they've done for me.
        Also watching from home are Tricia's parents. They have
    been there for our family and, you know, would give you the
    shirt off their back and support us in everything that we do.
        And finally, I'd like to acknowledge the talented men and
    women of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western
    District of Louisiana. They have helped me develop as a lawyer
    and are dedicated public servants who get up every day to serve
    the United States. They make our community safer, and they
    protect the interests of this great country.
        And thank you so much to all of you for considering my
    nomination, and I look forward to answering any questions you
    may have.
        Chairman Grassley.
        [Off mic] testimony to us in your opening statement.
        We have 5-minute rounds. After my 5 minutes is up, as I
    previously announced, Senator Kennedy is going to Chair this
    hearing. I am going to start my questioning with Mr. Duva.
        During your time in the U.S. Attorney's Office, you've
    developed impressive trial practice and have personally tried
    more than 20 cases to jury verdict. Please tell us how your
    experience handling the nuts and bolts of criminal prosecution
    has prepared you to lead this Justice Department of Criminal
    Division.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, and thank you for
    your time in your office last week. I thought we had a great
    discussion.
        I think what you learn 18 years on the line as a line AUSA,
    as you progress into more complicated cases, is how to lead
    teams. And I did that with FBI, DEA, HSI, and many other
    agencies. I intentionally stayed on the line because of the
    specialties that I developed and I thought I made the biggest
    difference for the American people in the cases that I
    prosecuted. And in fact, you always want the next one. When you
    finish a great case and you have some in the hopper, you can't
    wait to get to the next one. So I felt like doing the nuts-and-
    bolts work, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman, is what will prepare
    me and has prepared me to lead the trial attorneys and their
    immediate supervisors and their supervisors in the Criminal
    Division because what we will focus on is doing the best cases
    that we can that make the biggest impact for all American
    people, regardless of who you are or where you live.
        Chairman Grassley. Justice Crain, you got an award from
    Louisiana's largest victim rights organization, Crime Fighters,
    Inc. And this is also an issue as Chairman of the Committee
    that I have tried to advocate for, victims' rights. Can you
    tell us a bit about the role of a judge in protecting victims
    of crime? And I congratulate you on your Judge of the Year
    Award from the Crime Fighters.
        Judge Crain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My first role as a judge--and quite frankly, the award,
    while I was honored to get the award, obviously, I didn't seek
    the award. The first role as a judge is to be fair and
    impartial to all the parties that come before the court. But
    you can't lose sight--and in Louisiana we have constitutional
    provisions that actually protect the rights of victims, so
    there are things that many States don't have that we have
    expressly done in the law to protect victims. So I was very
    proud to get that award, honored to get the award.
        I do feel like at times that victims' voices--and maybe
    it's because they are not typically protected. The defendants'
    rights are constitutionally protected that come through the
    court, and oftentimes, the victims do not get the same
    protections. But once again, my job as a judge, my role as a
    judge is to be fair and impartial to all parties. And because
    of the laws in Louisiana, we're able to give particular
    protections to victims.
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Van Hook, in the USA's Office,
    you've litigated hundreds of cases, and I said in my opening
    statement, I will repeat, you have tried 18 cases to jury.
    You've also served as acting U.S. attorney for the Western
    District of your State on three separate occasions. Tell us how
    your wide range of prosecutorial experience has prepared you
    for the Federal branch.
        Mr. Van Hook. Mr. Chairman, you know, I've been fortunate,
    my entire legal career has been in service to the United
    States. I started clerking for two fabulous judges, one on the
    Fifth Circuit and one in the district court, and I then started
    the job of my dreams as being an assistant United States
    attorney. And in that job, I've appeared in Federal courts
    hundreds and hundreds of times and handled hundreds and
    hundreds of cases. And I've seen some judges that have been
    absolutely fantastic. And I have watched them treat people
    fairly, with dignity and respect, and move their dockets along
    in such a way as to provide justice to the parties before them.
    And I believe that just that front row seat has given me the
    perspective that I would need to be a United States district
    judge, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
        Chairman Grassley. My last question will go to Mr. Duva.
    During your career as a Federal prosecutor, you have earned
    numerous awards and commendations. You've received honors from
    the U.S. Attorney's Office, Department of Homeland Security,
    ICE, IRS, FBI, Secret Service. What have you learned from
    collaborating across these Federal agencies that you think will
    best serve you as the leader of the Criminal Division?
        Mr. Duva. I learned teamwork, Chairman Grassley. And the
    more complicated cases, as I mentioned before, as you grow as a
    prosecutor, you have to take the right steps at the right time
    and work together with the law enforcement agencies. And at
    times, I've worked with the Criminal Division, the fraud
    section, the public integrity section. And difficult cases are
    difficult to make. And I learned patience, strategy, teamwork,
    and the proper use of the grand jury to make those cases. But
    teamwork is the word that I would use most often.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley.
        Mr. Duva, it was a pleasure to meet you in my office. I had
    never met you before, and you did well. You made, I thought, a
    convincing, sincere presentation of your belief that the
    responsibility of the U.S. attorney is unique. You acknowledged
    the authority of the office and the power of the office to
    change lives. You have been involved in a case that drew
    national attention on public corruption, and we talked about
    that for some period of time.
        The PIN section of the Department of Justice, which is part
    of your division if you are confirmed, has been reduced in
    number from 30 to 2, and the 2 are literally novice political
    appointees. I was heartened to hear you believe that the PIN
    plays an important role in making decisions involving
    prosecution of public corruption. There is a longstanding
    requirement that prosecution of public officials be reviewed by
    PIN's career prosecutors to ensure that they are not
    politically motivated. Attorney General Bondi has reportedly
    eliminated this requirement. When we met, you told me you
    thought PIN played an important role in the process. Do you
    agree that PIN prosecutors should review the prosecution of
    public officials?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and I enjoyed our 25 minutes in your office on Monday.
    I appreciate your time, and I thought we had a great and honest
    discussion.
        To answer your question about PIN, I've worked with PIN in
    multiple cases. I tried a case against a former Member of
    Congress in 2017 with PIN, and it was a very good partnership.
    What I will do if I'm confirmed by the Senate is have a
    discussion with the deputy attorney general about repurposing
    PIN and figure out how to, if there's a lane, to buildup that
    section and make it a more robust section than it is.
        I'm aware of the news. I wasn't involved in any of those
    decisions of it going from 30 lawyers to 2 lawyers. I
    understand some of those lawyers are detailed in other portions
    of the Criminal Division. But I think from my own experience,
    which is a specialty of mine, that public corruption
    prosecutions have an absolute place both in the U.S. Attorney's
    Offices and the Criminal Division, and I will have discussions
    with Deputy Attorney General Blanche because I believe the
    Criminal Division should have a footprint in those prosecutions
    in evaluating cases at the national level.
        Senator Durbin. We have seen reports of the indictments
    against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney
    General Letitia James. Many of them were hastily brought by
    Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist installed as the interim
    U.S. attorney when other prosecutors balked or were removed. I
    said to my staff how impressive our meeting was, and they said,
    what will he do when he gets the Comey call? What will he do as
    an 18-year veteran of the U.S. Attorney's Office when a
    political figure in this Administration says, this is what I
    want you to do, prosecute this person, whether it is a Member
    of Congress or someone who wronged the President in years gone
    by?
        You said you have done the job the right way for 18 years,
    and I have no reason to believe you have not. The question is
    whether or not you are going to stand by that when you are
    faced with that moment. It could be a call from the White
    House. It could be a call from the Department of Justice. It
    could be a tweet by the President of the United States
    instructing you to prosecute an individual that you know there
    is no evidence against.
        So let me ask you, Mr. Duva, what will you do?
        Mr. Duva. I will stand by--when I was sworn in as an AUSA,
    I took an oath, and I take it seriously, and I bring it before
    this Committee today. Those cases are not being handled by the
    Criminal Division. They're being handled by another U.S.
    Attorney's Office, the Eastern District of Virginia. I really
    don't know much about them other than what I've read about
    them, so I cannot comment specifically on those cases, and I've
    never met Ms. Halligan.
        But what I can tell you, Senator, and what I told you in
    your office, is that I will always do one thing, and that is
    apply the facts to the law in any case, whether it's a public
    corruption case, a transnational drug case, or anything of that
    nature because that's what you're sworn to do, and that is the
    only path for a prosecutor. And as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, all we have is our integrity, and if I get a call or
    a referral, the case will go to a line attorney in the Public
    Integrity Section, or whatever section it is, and it will be
    worked up properly by properly using the grand jury, and we
    will investigate a case and make a charging decision based on
    the Justice Manual and the ethics of my office.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Van Hook, you have been acting U.S.
    Attorney in the Western District of Louisiana. I am sure you
    are aware of the crime rate in Shreveport, Louisiana. What you
    may not know is the latest data shows that Shreveport has a
    higher murder rate than the city of Chicago. Is violent crime a
    problem in Shreveport?
        Mr. Van Hook. Senator, violent crime is a problem anywhere,
    and in any murder--any--having one victim of a murder is one
    too many, and as the--being in leadership of the United States
    Attorney's Office in Shreveport, I've worked very hard with our
    State, local, and Federal law enforcement partners to do our
    best to help bring down the crime rate. We've worked with the
    district attorney there, the police chief. We've formed a
    collaborative partnership. You know, unlike a lot of places in
    this world today, we all get along there, and we've all worked
    very hard together to try to reduce crime.
        Senator Durbin. Do you think you need the National Guard to
    fight crime in Shreveport, Louisiana?
        Mr. Van Hook. I don't think we need them, but I think they
    would be welcome. I think that the chief of police would
    welcome them. Chief Smith, I believe, would welcome their help,
    and I think that whatever resources could be brought to bear to
    reduce crime in Shreveport would be helpful.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy [presiding]. Senator Durbin, that was a
    good, good question, and yes, Shreveport has a crime problem.
    Most of our urban areas do. We have suburban crime and rural
    crime, but we do have a crime problem in Shreveport. You make a
    salient point.
        Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    each of you for being here today. Congratulations on your
    nomination, and congratulations to all of your family members
    who are here in support of you.
        Mr. Duva, I will start with you. I am concerned by the
    attacks on religious institutions and people of faith that we
    have seen across our Nation. It seems that there is a rise or
    emphasis, whether it is the Annunciation Catholic Church in
    Minnesota or the LDS Church in Michigan. These things have been
    clearly motivated by religious animus. And when I am looking at
    how we respond to this problem, it is my opinion that it will
    require engagements from a number of different divisions within
    DOJ.
        But once you are confirmed and you are leading the Criminal
    Division, you know, how are you going to work to ensure that
    people of faith can practice that faith and worship and gather
    freely without fear of being targeted for their religious
    beliefs? Talk to me about your plan there and how you are going
    to work to hold those accountable who are responsible for the
    violence or those who are responsible for inciting the
    violence.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I want
    to note for the record that I was in your hometown of
    Enterprise, Alabama, on October 11 when I took my son, Gavin, a
    baseball player to a recruiting trip for Enterprise State
    Community College for which he received his first offer. So go
    Boll Weevils.
        Senator Britt. Go Boll Weevils. That is outstanding. And
    congrats.
        Mr. Duva. To answer your question, Senator--thank you.
        In terms of violence against people of faith or any
    institutions, that is a serious matter. We live in a time where
    threats and violence, social media, and then carrying those out
    are all too familiar, and it is going to be important for the
    Violent Crime Section and the Criminal Division to have a
    strategy to deal with that.
        We are living with people with their phones, they say
    anything, and oftentimes it's vile and disgusting and attacking
    to people of faith. And regardless of whether it's the Catholic
    Church or any other church or any religion, none of it is
    appropriate. I have prosecuted threat cases not against
    churches or people of faith but against judges, against
    lawmakers, and we will go through and go about those
    investigations as we always have. We will identify the threat,
    evaluate it based on the existing statutes, and make a
    prosecution decision. But violence against our institution, our
    churches, our Government, it must stop, and we must beat it
    back with appropriate investigations and prosecutions.
        Senator Britt. What about those on our law enforcement
    officers like what we have seen happen to so many of our ICE
    agents across the country, particularly in Dallas? I think that
    that is an example. We want to make sure that doesn't happen
    again. Talk to me about your approach there in protecting our
    law enforcement officers and then holding those accountable who
    incite violence on them.
        Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. Assault on any law enforcement
    officer is improper, and it--regardless of how it's motivated
    or where it's motivated, if it's far right, far left, or
    whatever we're talking about. And I've prosecuted those cases.
    I've prosecuted drug dealers who assault DEA agents when they
    go in and execute a search warrant, and those same principles
    of those statutes apply in all cases. So that is something that
    the U.S. Attorney's Offices take very seriously. Again, I've
    done those cases in the Criminal Division as well. Violence
    against law enforcement is illegal, and it will be prosecuted
    to the fullest extent of the law.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much.
        Now turning to our two judicial nominees, in the spirit of
    our Chairman, who always has the best lines of questioning in
    these hearings, I wanted to prepare and, you know, have some
    questions that would make him proud.
        So my question to you, Mr. Van Hook, is can you explain how
    litigants establish subject matter jurisdiction in Federal
    court?
        Mr. Van Hook. Well, a litigant in Federal court in the--on
    the civil side would need to file a complaint that would set
    forth the cause of action that would be recognizable in the
    Federal court.
        Senator Britt. Okay. And tell me, can litigating parties
    waive their subject matter jurisdiction?
        Mr. Van Hook. No.
        Senator Britt. All right. Well, Judge Crain, a question for
    you. Current State of the Lemon test, can you talk a little bit
    about your understanding of the Lemon test and its role
    historically that it has played in the Supreme Court
    establishment clause jurisprudence?
        Judge Crain. The establishment clause I can talk about.
        Senator Britt. All right. Let's go.
        Judge Crain. I've dealt with. They have a--there's a First
    Amendment right, and the Government cannot establish a
    religion. That comes in many, many forms. So you've got both an
    exercise right and establishment right under that First
    Amendment. So we--I mean--excuse me. I've dealt with the
    establishment clause in some context, but generally speaking,
    the Government cannot establish a religion, and we have the
    right to free exercise of our religion under the Constitution.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Judge. I hope I did well,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. You were awesome. Just vote right. You
    done, Katie?
        Senator Britt. Yes, I am.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Senator Blumenthal, who used to be
    U.S. attorney himself.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was a United
    States Attorney for 4\1/2\ years in Connecticut.
        And so, Mr. Duva, your nomination has special significance.
    I think it ought to have enormous meaning to the entire
    Committee and to the Nation because you will have enormous
    power over people's lives. And I was impressed by your
    statement that essentially your ethic is to do the right thing
    for the right reasons. And unfortunately, what we have seen in
    recent weeks is prosecutions based on personal animosity or
    political considerations of two very prominent individuals,
    James Comey and Attorney General Tish James, where career
    prosecutors resigned because they thought it was the wrong
    thing for the wrong reasons, in fact, based on improper
    considerations, instructions from the President contained,
    among other places, in a post that he used to issue
    instructions. And so I want to probe a little bit on that
    question. Would you agree that no one should be prosecuted for
    their political beliefs or because they are a personal or
    political adversary of the President?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator Blumenthal. I
    can't speak to those cases because I'm not involved.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am asking you in general, and I think
    it is a yes or no question.
        Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. And as I said in my opening
    statement, individuals are prosecuted based on the facts and
    those facts as applied to the law. And for 18 years as an AUSA,
    I wrote a pros memo in every case.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am going to interrupt you with
    apologies because I have limited amounts of time.
        Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am going to take that as a yes, that
    they should be based on the facts and the law, not the
    President's personal feelings of animosity or political
    opposition.
        Let me just followup because you are going to be in this
    position. If you are pressured by someone in the White House,
    including the President, to bring criminal charges that you
    believe are unsupported by the facts and the law, would you
    resign?
        Mr. Duva. We're going to evaluate every case that we
    receive, Senator, based on the facts and the law, and we will
    have processes. I mentioned a prosecution memorandum that I
    will evaluate at the highest level of the Criminal Division,
    and I will consult with the deputy attorney general, and my
    decision will be based solely on the facts and the law in every
    case.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I am asking what you would do if
    you are instructed to bring an indictment--to seek an
    indictment from a grand jury that you believe is lacking in
    facts and legal support? Would you resign? Would you stand up?
    Would you be counted? It is not enough to say we will review it
    on the process and so forth. Now is your time to tell this
    Committee that you will have the backbone to stand on
    conscience and conviction.
        Mr. Duva. I don't think I'll be in that position, Senator,
    but all I can say is I will do what I've always done based on
    the Justice Manual and the ethics of my office is evaluate
    cases based on the facts and the law and make decisions. They
    will not be based on personal animus. They will not be based on
    tweets. They will not be based on anything but the facts and
    the law in each case.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am disappointed in that response
    because I think it is less than the American people deserve by
    way of a commitment to the rule of law. But you did mention the
    Justice Manual, and I have a proposal, and I am hoping it will
    be supported on a bipartisan basis that would, in effect, among
    other things, codify the Justice Manual's prohibitions on
    political considerations in charging decisions and prohibit the
    White House from intervening or interfering in specific
    charging decisions. In addition, it would create a statutory
    right of action for people who are selectively or maliciously
    prosecuted. It would give them rights, much as they have in
    State court. I don't know about Louisiana, but in many State
    courts, there is a cause of action for malicious prosecution,
    and it would enact some key reforms in the grand jury process
    to ensure that the Government isn't abusing its power. Would
    you support those kinds of reforms, Mr. Duva?
        Mr. Duva. I'd be happy to work with the Office of
    Legislative Affairs and Legal Policy to have those discussions
    with the Committee and also the Senate. And many of those
    protections do exist in the Hyde Amendment, which is a Federal
    statute that addresses malicious prosecutions or prosecutions
    that are not based in fact, in law. So those protections do
    currently exist on the Federal level.
        Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I
    thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    all for being here.
        Mr. Duva, I do want to come to you. You know, I have got to
    tell you, I find it so curious that my colleagues across the
    dais are so concerned about weaponization, but under Jack
    Smith, they weren't concerned at all. And indeed, some of us
    were targeted by Jack Smith as a special counsel and with
    Arctic Frost. And ending two tiers of justice is something that
    A.G. Bondi has talked about. Having that one tier of justice in
    equal treatment is something that has been discussed. So as
    you're looking at this new role in the Criminal Division, I
    want you to talk for a moment about what you will do to end
    weaponization of our legal system.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, and thank you for
    taking time to speak with me yesterday. I really enjoyed our
    meeting.
        The term weaponization is used quite a bit, and I think as
    a career prosecutor and in the Criminal Division, there are
    litigating components with the trial attorneys that you do what
    we've talked about. And every referral, every matter that's
    brought in by a law enforcement officer, it starts somewhere.
    And to begin a public corruption investigation or a nationwide
    fraud investigation or an international drug trafficking
    investigation, you have to have articulable facts and
    predication. You can't just start it because you feel like it.
    You don't start it based on a person because you don't like
    them. That is weaponization. You start based on the facts. This
    thing we believe, we have these articulable facts, have
    occurred.
        And then you go to the statutes, and you begin your grand
    jury process with your grand jury subpoenas. And you work your
    way up to probable cause, whether it be a search warrant for
    electronic devices or whatever the case may be, a physical
    location. So there's a process that you go through and that
    I've become an expert in in handling grand jury investigations.
    And there's so much value in that. You learn so much about your
    case from the grand jurors. Every grand jury that I've
    presented before, they have--at the end of it, they have
    thanked me for the scope and the breadth of the investigations
    that I've been involved in.
        So we're going to do it the tried and true way, Senator.
        Senator Blackburn. Yes.
        Mr. Duva. We're going to evaluate the facts and apply those
    facts to the law and make charging decisions.
        Senator Blackburn. Well, I hope that that will provide some
    solace to my friends across the dais because that is not what
    took place under the Biden Administration. And we saw it time
    and again. And of course, some of us are living it. So thank
    you. Thank you for that approach.
        I also want to talk about Memphis. Now, we have Memphis
    Safe Task Force that is in place, and I am very grateful to
    Director Patel and A.G. Bondi and President Trump for the way
    they have approached dealing with crime in Memphis. Now, since
    the start of operations with the task force in September, we
    have had nearly 1,200 arrests. They have seized 200 illegal
    guns. Sixty-three missing children have been rescued. And
    you've got gang members that are now off the streets, which is
    great.
        So one of the things we are focused on now is making
    certain that we get these cases into court. So I would like for
    you to talk a little bit about what you can do to ensure that
    we have rigorous prosecutions in these cases that are coming to
    us out of Memphis.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. I've lived that,
    but I've lived it in Florida in our Ocala division. I worked
    with DEA in Gainesville for 10 years, and there was a task
    force down in Ocala named the UDEST, the Unified Drug
    Enforcement Strike Force, so task forces are important because
    oftentimes those State and local officers have excellent
    informants. They have cooperating defendants. And you start
    there to build your multi-defendant cases.
        And I've always said this. Multi-defendant drug cases solve
    gun violence and homicide problems. They go hand in hand. The
    tools of the drug trade are firearms. So I'm glad to hear that
    there's been great success in Memphis. I look forward to
    working with the Dangerous Drug Section, the Money Laundering
    Section, which I know is going to be put together to partnering
    with districts in Tennessee and throughout the country to
    evaluate and solve those problems. I've done it myself, I've
    seen the results, and the communities are very thankful when
    that occurs.
        Senator Blackburn. I have one other question, but in the
    interest of time, I will send that to you as a QFR. We talked
    briefly about romance scams and the money that is being taken
    from many of our seniors, about $1.3 billion a year.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask the following two foundational questions of all
    nominees who come before any of the Committees on which I sit
    to gauge fitness to serve. So I will ask the panel, and I will
    start with Mr. Duva and go down the line in your responses.
        Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted
    requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
    harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
        Mr. Duva. No, Senator.
        Judge Crain. No, Senator.
        Mr. Van Hook. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        Mr. Duva. No, Senator Hirono.
        Judge Crain. No--excuse me. No, Senator.
        Mr. Van Hook. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. For Mr. Duva, if confirmed, you would
    oversee the Public Integrity Section at the Department of
    Justice. Are you familiar with that section?
        Mr. Duva. I am, Senator. I've tried cases with the Public
    Integrity Section myself as an AUSA in the Middle District of
    Florida.
        Senator Hirono. So the Public Integrity Section targets
    corruption. So let me ask you, if an incoming member of the
    Government accepted $50,000 in cash in exchange for future
    government contracts, would that be a possible sign of bribery,
    or I believe you referred to it as public corruption. Yes or
    no?
        Mr. Duva. Senator Hirono, I'll answer that with any case
    that comes to one of our trial attorneys will be evaluated
    based on the facts and the law. I think you're referring to
    some recent news.
        Senator Hirono. So would you consider that, accepting
    $50,000--that might raise questions about a bribe. I mean, I
    think it is a bribe, but what do you say to it? Do you think
    that it is an indication?
        Mr. Duva. It depends on the facts and the law. I know
    you're talking about a specific investigation that has been
    declined by the Attorney General and the FBI. But if you
    repurpose that, it's not just one thing that happens. It is
    basically you have to evaluate and investigate what happens.
        Senator Hirono. Well, I think that there was no--whatever
    evaluation there was, although we are told by the Attorney
    General there was an evaluation, but we still don't know what
    happened to that money.
        Let me ask you another question. If a member of Government
    complains that they don't have a nice enough airplane and then
    a foreign government offers to donate an airplane to them,
    would that be also a possible sign of bribery or public
    corruption? Again, yes or no?
        Mr. Duva. I think you're talking, Senator, about the
    Emoluments Clause. I think it's the first I've heard of that
    clause in the news recently in the last 6 months or so. That is
    not something that the Criminal Division would weigh in on.
    That is an Office of Legal Policy question.
        Senator Hirono. Well, you can sit there and tell me that it
    is an issue that will go to some other entity, but, you know,
    you are going to be running a department that concerns itself
    with public corruption, so I just want to know. I think the
    American people would like to know whether something like that,
    where a President accepts a plane that is worth some $400
    million, whether that indicates bribery or public corruption.
        You are not responding, so let me ask you another. If a
    member of the Government wants to build a new government
    building and Big Tech billionaires jump in line to pay for it,
    would that raise concerns about bribery or public corruption?
        Mr. Duva. Senator, I don't know what specific incident
    you're talking about. I'm not familiar with that----
        Senator Hirono. Building of a ballroom.
        Mr. Duva [continuing]. But as I said before----
        Senator Hirono. The demolition of the East Wing and a
    building of the ballroom, you are aware that that is happening?
        Mr. Duva. I am aware of that.
        Senator Hirono. Does that indicate public corruption or
    bribery?
        Mr. Duva. I don't see how that is. I don't know how that
    came about or the procurement for it or who's involved. That's
    just not something I'm familiar with.
        Senator Hirono. The President decided that it would be a
    good idea, and companies are jumping in line to try and curry
    favor with him.
        For Justice Crain----
        Mr. Duva. And again, Senator, we operate on the facts. I
    don't know the facts of that.
        Senator Hirono. I am running out of time. Thank you very
    much for your non-answers.
        For Justice Crain, when you were running for the Louisiana
    Supreme Court in 2019, a news article stated, ``Crain has
    become the favorite choice of Big Oil and other industry and
    statewide business groups, viewed as a sympathetic ear for an
    industry facing pending litigation by coastal parties and
    landowners seeking payment for decades of alleged damage to
    coastal land by oil and gas companies.''
        Justice Crain, did Chevron, the Louisiana Oil and Gas
    Association, and Koch Industries donate to your campaign?
        Judge Crain. Senator, I don't know because campaign
    contributions in Louisiana go through a campaign committee that
    we are prohibited from soliciting or participating in.
        Senator Hirono. Oh, so you don't know who contributes to
    your campaign?
        Judge Crain. I do not know specifically whether those
    entities----
        Senator Hirono. So therefore, if entities like this, which
    by the way, they did donate to you, you have no awareness of
    them donating to you so that if matters that relate to them and
    their interests come before you, you wouldn't even know whether
    to recuse yourself? Is that the situation?
        Judge Crain. Well, that actually is, I think, one of the
    rationales and motivations for the prohibition for us being
    able to solicit or participate in it.
        Senator Hirono. Well, it is pretty clear that you favor
    these industries, and as a matter of fact, when a case came
    before the Louisiana Supreme Court, you dissented from the
    court's majority to support the oil and gas industries. So
    thank you very much.
        I have some other questions that I will submit for the
    record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be
    here with some great people. Appreciate you and all your
    families showing up here today to support you.
        This panel, I believe, reflects some of the very best among
    our American legal profession. Mr. Van Hook, you spent over 25
    years prosecuting all sorts of cases in the U.S. Attorney's
    Office for the Western District of Louisiana. Justice Crain,
    you served at each level of Louisiana's judiciary from the
    trial court to the court of last resort. And Mr. Duva, you have
    made an entire career out of doing justice, going after the bad
    guys from drug traffickers to fraudsters and corrupt public
    figures. You have gotten up each day, put on the white hat, and
    worked to defend the rule of law in this country.
        I am an attorney. Attorneys often get bad raps. I think it
    is so important that we remind Americans that there are lawyers
    like you that use their law degree for good and just causes to
    serve their fellow Americans, and we thank you for that. We
    need more like you. Unfortunately, we often see bad examples in
    the legal profession, and I always like to highlight when we
    are seeing remarkable works by remarkable men and women, so
    thank you very much for being here today.
        I want to start off with Mr. Duva. I have noticed that
    President Trump--and I commend him for this, in leadership and
    many of nominations, and not just within the Department of
    Justice but in other agencies, people are being brought in from
    across America that might not have worked in agencies before.
    They might have been working in the details of what that agency
    is seeking to accomplish in the day-to-day work, but in other
    States, in other ways, certainly that is you. You are being
    plucked from the great free State of Florida and being asked to
    come serve in a leadership capacity here in Washington. I, for
    one, think that is great. It brings fresh eyes, perspective.
    You know, it gets away from someone maybe that was raised in
    the petri dish of the swamp, and it brings in someone to focus
    again on what is the mission of the agency, and how do we
    remain true to that?
        In that vein, if you are confirmed in this position, you
    will be asked to do a lot of hiring and filling out your ranks
    to complete the goals of that mission. And I would like to hear
    from you--and I know the Committee would--what type of
    attorneys will you be looking for to fill the ranks of your
    division?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Moody. And you and I came into
    the same culture in the Middle District of Florida. We were
    hired by the same U.S. attorney and first assistant. You were
    hired by Paul Perez. I was hired by acting U.S. attorney Jim
    Klindt, who was his first assistant. We both came into an
    office of elite culture and opportunities for those who
    deserved it, wherever you came from. It didn't matter if you
    went to Harvard or you went to Florida Coastal or wherever you
    went. That's the attitude that I'm going to have.
        And I'm a sports fan, so I sometimes call lawyers players,
    and I don't mean that. I'm looking for great players. I look at
    myself as a general manager trying to find the best possible
    players that I can, and I'm looking for trial lawyers. I'm
    looking for lawyers, men and women, who have been at the
    endgame, tried difficult cases, and know what that feels like
    because it's really, really difficult.
        Being inside the courtroom gives you an experience like no
    other, and it's not just the basic cases, but as you develop
    into prosecuting the complicated cases because that's what the
    Criminal Division is going to do. I always tell AUSAs that
    you're only as good as your best 10 cases. What are they? If
    they're the same topic, it's probably not great, but if it's a
    diverse topic and you've had multi-week jury trials, you've
    worked with teams of agents, you worked with agencies together,
    State and locals. Your husband was a DEA agent, investigated
    and prosecuted complicated international drug cases. I've done
    that with DEA. I've lived that life, and those are the lawyers
    that I'm going to be looking for, people that get up, they're
    ready to fight, they've tried cases. I want them in
    supervision, and I want them as trial attorneys. And also those
    that are in the appellate section. They've done the appeal
    work, they've been in other parts of the Department of Justice,
    and they're tried and true. That's what I'm looking for.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Duva. And one of my greatest
    concerns, having come into the Senate--obviously, I am one of
    the newest Senators here--is watching the American trust of our
    judiciary erode. We have to have confidence that our judiciary
    is fair and impartial. District courts uniquely interface with
    litigants. Our higher courts, our circuit courts of appeal, the
    U.S. Supreme Court, they are often dealing with briefs and
    attorneys, but you interface and trial courts will interface
    with litigants. How can you use that unique role to shore up
    trust in the judiciary? Either one.
        Mr. Duva. Where I come from in Jacksonville----
        Senator Moody. I am sorry, I was directing that to Crain or
    Van Hook.
        Mr. Duva. Oh, sorry.
        Senator Moody. I apologize. Although I love your energy and
    enthusiasm, Mr. Duva.
        Judge Crain. Well, I join you in that, and I think that we
    have to be conscious every day that the strength that we have
    in the judiciary comes from the public's confidence in what we
    do. I'm a firm believer that one of the ways that we do that is
    to fairly and impartially apply the rule of law, that there
    should be some predictability. If you read the law, you ought
    to have some idea of what you're going to be faced with when
    you go into court. I think that's important for public
    confidence.
        The other is to treat all of your litigants, all of the
    parties with dignity and respect. I think that you have to
    treat them the way you want them to treat you in the
    institution, with dignity and respect. So those would be the
    things that I would say would be important to foster public
    confidence in the judiciary.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Good to be
    with all of you.
        Mr. Duva, thank you for the time in my office with you. I
    wanted to ask you a couple of questions. We know from personal
    experience about what used to be called the U.S. Attorney's
    Manual and is now called the Justice Manual. Will you adhere to
    and enforce the procedures and processes of the Justice Manual
    as Criminal Division chief?
        Mr. Duva. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for your time
    yesterday in your office. I really enjoyed our conversation. I
    thought it was open and honest.
        Yes, I will do that.
        Senator Whitehouse. There has been a contacts policy in
    force really driven by pressure from this Committee going all
    the way back to when Senator Hatch Chaired it under the Reno
    Department of Justice that limits the people who can talk to
    each other about criminal cases to a very, very few at the top
    of the White House and to a very, very few at the top of the
    Department of Justice.
        And as we discussed, the obvious reason for that is to
    protect the Department and indeed the White House from junior
    G-men squirrels in the White House or in the Department of
    Justice from cooking up mischief that their seniors, the people
    who are publicly accountable, aren't aware of. And that
    mischief is at its worst and at its most dangerous if it is
    coming through criminal prosecutions that aren't well founded
    and haven't followed proper process and procedure. What is your
    understanding of the current contacts policy of the Department
    of Justice? And will you adhere to that and make sure your
    staff adheres to that?
        Mr. Duva. Senator, I believe that policy is being evaluated
    by the Attorney General and the deputy attorney general. I
    believe at the beginning of this Administration, there was a
    blanket memo that rescinded prior policies, including the
    contacts policy. I believe that was part of it, but there is
    going to be one forthcoming. I will abide by the policy, and I
    will expand on that. And as cases rise up through the Criminal
    Division for my evaluation, I will be speaking with my
    counterparts at the law enforcement agencies at my level about
    those cases. And if there's any inquiries from the White House
    over to the Criminal Division, I will be following the policy,
    which I'm sure will be along the lines of what you're talking
    about, very few people in the DOJ talking to very few people in
    the White House about specific cases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, I would urge your DOJ handlers
    here to be sure to let the Committee know as quickly as
    possible when that forthcoming thing comes forth because,
    frankly, I don't think this Committee was aware officially
    until now that this was a lapse in many decades of a contacts
    policy. I think the only previous lapse was under Attorney
    General Gonzales, and that did not work out well for him.
        You mentioned earlier that you have prosecuted--in fact, we
    discussed that you had prosecuted or at least investigated
    cases of threats against judges. As you know, there has been a
    plague of threats against judges. I want to make sure that you
    will commit that you will follow the evidence where it leads,
    which includes potential orchestration of those threats. In
    some cases, it is not enough to simply investigate the
    individual who uttered the threat. In some cases, the evidence
    suggests that somebody is behind a pattern of threats either as
    an enterprise or as a conspiracy or in some other fashion. And
    I have been unable to get any reassurance from the Department
    of Justice that they will investigate orchestration of threats
    where there is predication of that orchestration. Will you?
        Mr. Duva. You go where the evidence takes you, Senator.
    I've prosecuted cases, threats against judges, as I've
    mentioned before, whether they're solo--excuse me, solo threats
    or otherwise, and you evaluate where the case takes you.
    Threats from any group toward judges, legislators, executives,
    anybody is inappropriate, no matter where the orchestration
    occurs. So you follow the evidence, just like you do in a drug
    case, just like you do in a corruption case. You follow the
    evidence where it leads, and that's exactly what we will do in
    the Criminal Division, not just in those kind of cases, but all
    cases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, my concern is that there is a ban
    somehow on investigating that, that the Marshals Service is
    being discouraged from pursuing those cases that the FBI, to
    which the Marshals Service usually hands off cases, is being
    discouraged. So keep an eye out for that because that would be
    highly improper.
        Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
        Senator Whitehouse. Last, and I hope this is something we
    can work together on, Senator Graham and I support a piece of
    legislation that allows for what you and I would call in rem
    proceedings against assets. And as you and I both know, right
    now under U.S. law, asset seizure up to $500,000 can be
    prosecuted against the asset, in rem, against the thing. And
    that is why we have cases all over the place with weird names
    like United States versus $40,000 from the trunk of a 1979
    Chevelle because the asset is the target. Notice goes to the
    world, and anybody can come in and challenge the seizure of
    that asset, but you don't have to go through enormous, enormous
    effort to show ownership. You do it the other way around.
        Where this really comes to bear is where we are dealing
    with corrupt foreign criminals who have huge assets but have
    spent a lot of time hiding those assets behind all sorts of
    different legal screens. Cypriot bank accounts, Dakota trusts,
    Cayman Islands fake corporations, all of that.
        So I will ask you, and I will followup with a question for
    the record because I have gone over my time now. I will ask you
    to take a good hard look at whether the work of the Marshals
    Service seizing these very expensive assets would not be
    simplified quite a lot by letting the proceedings be pursued in
    rem and ask for an explanation of why a foreign criminal or
    kleptocrat should have more rights in the U.S. court system for
    a billion-dollar asset than a regular ordinary American does
    with respect to their property up to $500,000.
        So let's take that under advisement so you have a chance to
    reflect on it. And we would like to pass that bill. We would
    like to get technical assistance from the Department and its
    support for it, and thank you.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
    the nominees. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Duva, if I could just start with you. I have noticed
    that you have been asked a number of questions about
    hypotheticals, about political interference, what would happen
    if so-and-so tried to interfere in an investigation? What would
    happen if you were asked to pursue politically motivated ends?
    What would happen if you were asked to pursue or launch a
    politically motivated investigation?
        So let me just ask you about a non-hypothetical just to get
    your response, something that actually happened, like, for
    example, the United States Department of Justice seeking to
    track the cell phones of eight members of the U.S. Senate
    without any criminal predicate, without any notice to any
    Senator, multiple of whom sit on this Committee, including
    myself, without any legal process to the Senator targeted
    whatsoever. They tracked all incoming calls to our phones, all
    outgoing calls to our phones, all metadata associated with the
    calls, including location, the duration of the calls. Does this
    sound appropriate to you? Does this sound like appropriate
    behavior for the Department of Justice to be engaged in?
        Mr. Duva. Senator Hawley, I appreciate the question and I'm
    noticing the panel's asking me a lot. I'm happy to share with
    my colleagues as we keep going in this discussion. But sir,
    what I think you're talking about is issuing a grand jury
    subpoena for cell phone records. And in any investigation, you
    better have, pursuant to the Justice Manual, specific and
    articulable facts about why you're doing that. If you do not
    have that and you cannot articulate those facts under 18 USC
    2703, that subpoena does not get served.
        Senator Hawley. You know, the other thing that is
    interesting about this context, and I appreciate your answer,
    is that the records that they sought to track and trace and
    tap, the devices that they sought are in the possession of
    Senators pursuant to their constitutional duties. 2 USC Section
    6628(a) specifically says that those records do not become the
    possession of cell phone companies, they don't become the
    possession of Verizon or AT&T or whomever. They are retained by
    the Senator's office. Why? Because these devices are used
    pursuant to the speech and debate responsibilities of Senators.
        Yet the Justice Department did not inform Senators, did not
    seek from our offices these records. They went instead, ex
    parte, to the telephone companies, got the records apparently,
    again, with no criminal predicate that we know about, no
    process whatsoever. It is a grotesque violation of statutory
    law and also the separation of powers, particularly the speech
    and debate clause. Here you have an executive branch directly
    spying on members of the legislative branch while they are
    performing their constitutional duties.
        Let me just ask you, Mr. Duva, does this sound like
    something we want to normalize? I mean, is this something you
    would like to see the current Justice Department doing on a
    regular basis? I mean, should they be tracking the cell phone
    records of everybody down here on the left side of the dais?
    Would that be a good thing for the country?
        Mr. Duva. Clearly no, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Clearly no, clearly no. I can't tell you
    what an outrage I think this is, and so it is just a little bit
    hard for me to stomach sitting here and listening to be asked
    about all of these various hypotheticals. This isn't a
    hypothetical. This happened. It happened, and so far, there
    have been exactly zero repercussions for it.
        And I just want to say that if my colleagues are serious
    about stopping political weaponization of the Justice
    Department, why don't we start with this right here? Why don't
    we find out who authorized this? Why don't we find out what
    laws, if any, were broken? Why don't we appoint a special
    prosecutor to go after this and get to the bottom of it? And I
    will just reiterate my calls for this Committee to do full
    oversight hearings on exactly what happened as part of this
    weaponization, as part of this, I think, both illegal and
    unconstitutional targeting of United States Senators in their
    constitutional responsibilities.
        At the same time, the same Justice Department was also
    targeting, we now know, thanks to whistleblowers, 92 separate
    conservative organizations, including Charlie Kirk's Turning
    Point USA, a campus organization. Why? I guess because it was
    conservative.
        I mean, this is the most unbelievable abuse of the Justice
    Department that I have not only seen in my lifetime, that I
    have ever read or heard about in our country's history because
    it is not one little thing. It is an entire pattern. This is
    the same Justice Department that sent a SWAT team to the home
    of a pro-life demonstrator. This is the same Justice Department
    and FBI that tried to recruit informants into Catholic
    parishes. This is the same Justice Department that targeted the
    chief political opponent of the then sitting President for
    prosecution to try to keep him off of a ballot. I mean, it is
    unbelievable.
        And I hope that my colleagues agree, I hope we can all
    agree, we cannot allow this to become the norm. And I hope, Mr.
    Duva, if you are confirmed, you will do your part in the
    Criminal Division to make sure that the resources of this
    powerful, powerful agency are used for good to protect the
    American people, protect the rule of law to put violent
    criminals away, not to prosecute the political agendas of some
    politician somewhere.
        Thanks for being here.
        Mr. Duva. I will, Senator, thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Could you say that again? Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Welch. You know----
        Senator Kennedy. I like that.
        Senator Welch. You know, I am amazed at how quickly it went
    to your head.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. You shouldn't be. You know me well.
        Senator Welch. Well, that is true, but I wanted to keep it
    on the down low so you could at least maintain the appearance
    of a reasonable person.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Welch. But it is good to have you, Mr. Chairman.
        Judge Crain, in the State of Louisiana, judges have to run
    for election, which I think has some unfortunate consequences.
    That obviously is not your creation. If you want to be a judge,
    you got to run. But it meant you had to do what we have to do.
    We had, I guess in one of your campaigns, $1.2 million. And I
    know you will get legal contributions, and that will include
    from the oil and gas industry, which does have litigation in
    front of the court.
        And I know that one of the controversial cases that you had
    to make a decision on involved Chevron and Hess, which the
    dispute was about drilling and operating oil and gas wells on
    the plaintiff's property and that those companies were accused
    of failing to follow State environmental laws for the pits that
    they created, and there was a lot of environmental damage.
        I am not questioning your decision on that, but I just
    wonder if you could give me your thoughts about the obvious
    question that people would see who are not involved, that this
    could create a conflict of interest. I mean, they would say
    that about us as well, so I am not singling you out. But where
    you are a jurist, you have the responsibility of making a fair
    and impartial decision, yet in order to get elected under the
    law of Louisiana, not your law, you have to raise money, and
    these companies that have litigation before you make
    contributions to your campaign. Do you think it makes sense to
    have judges have to run for election and raise money from the
    people whose cases are going to be brought before them?
        Judge Crain. Senator, first of all, as you've acknowledged,
    that is the rule that we have in Louisiana. We've been electing
    judges in Louisiana, as far as I know, since its inception. We
    believe in the electoral process. Is it perfect? No. Could some
    people suggest that it creates the appearance of partiality to
    one side or the other? I think that's a fair assessment, that
    it could. Now, I will say----
        Senator Welch. So do you think it--I am sorry. Go ahead.
        Judge Crain. I will say that we have tried, or the
    legislature has tried, we at the Supreme Court, with the rules
    that we put in place, have tried to inoculate ourselves as much
    as possible by not--or by being prohibited from soliciting
    contributions. But you get to access----
        Senator Welch. All right.
        Judge Crain [continuing]. Our campaign finance reports.
        Senator Welch. I understand that. It is just a question of
    whether that makes sense. You will be in a different situation.
        But let me ask you, Mr. Duva. I had a nice visit with you.
    I appreciate that. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I am very
    concerned, to be candid, that the Trump Administration seems to
    be taking the position that we really shouldn't enforce it. And
    of course, that is the provision that says our companies can't
    bribe foreign officials in order to get business. And I notice
    that the Criminal Division has recently declined to prosecute
    Liberty Mutual Insurance Company after the company itself
    disclosed that it had paid $1.47 million in bribes to officials
    at State-owned banks in India in exchange for them referring
    banks to the company.
        In my understanding, the Trump position is that, look,
    everybody does it, that is the way the world works. I disagree
    with that. It may be that a lot of people do it, and it may be
    the way a lot of the world works. But I think one of the things
    we are proud of is that our companies make their case on the
    basis of quality of product, service, and price. What is your
    position on vigorous enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt
    Practices Act?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Welch, for the question, and
    thank you for the visit yesterday. I really enjoyed our
    discussion.
        I'm aware that there was a stay on FCPA cases based on an
    executive order in February. There's now a Deputy Attorney
    General Blanche memo from June of this year, and it set
    parameters for these cases going forward. I will abide by that.
    The focus will be on transnational criminal organizations where
    bribes are involved and also market manipulation scams.
        And now the Criminal Division has charged, I believe, eight
    or nine of those cases this year, and just successfully
    concluded a trial under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act where
    there were guilty verdicts by the Criminal Division in that
    case. And I look forward to abiding by that memo and
    progressing the good work of the men and women in that section.
        Senator Welch. I thank you. My time is up, but I spent a
    lot of time giving a hard time to the Chairman, so I just have
    one more question.
        Senator Kennedy. You can have more time.
        Senator Welch. Just one more question.
        The Public Integrity Section has been decimated. People
    have been sent from where they were working to other locations.
    It is down from 20--there are only two attorneys and one
    paralegal, and that is in contrast to 36 full-time career
    attorneys and 12 paralegals. I believe that is an incredibly
    important unit within your division. What are you going to do,
    and what is your position about how that has been decimated?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Welch. Ranking Member Durbin
    asked me that question right out of the box, and I've answered
    it a couple other times. I'm happy to answer it here. We're
    going to evaluate that section. I've tried cases with the
    Public Integrity Section. I know they've had very good lawyers
    over the years. I want to evaluate with Deputy Attorney General
    Blanche how that section is going to exist, how we might have a
    nationwide approach because I believe that the Criminal
    Division should have a footprint in nationwide public
    corruption cases. That's something that I did as an AUSA. I
    investigated and prosecuted public corruption cases at the
    national, State, and local level, and I look forward to that
    discussion, and thank you for the question, sir.
        Senator Welch. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you
    for being here.
        Mr. Duva, I would like to start with you if that is okay.
    Congratulations on your nomination to be the assistant attorney
    general----
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. Over the Criminal Division. Your
    experience as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Middle District
    of Florida will serve you well. In that role, you have done a
    number of things, including going after major international
    drug defendants and people who have done our country harm.
        Over the last few years, we have seen a massive set of
    gains achieved by international drug cartels who had a shocking
    degree of permissiveness shown to them as they trafficked
    millions upon millions of people into the United States,
    illegal immigrants, who also trafficked an unprecedented amount
    of harmful drugs, including enough fentanyl to kill a lot of
    people in this country. How will you work, if confirmed as
    assistant attorney general over the Criminal Division, to help
    dismantle the international cartels and their drug trafficking
    and human trafficking experts? And do you think that is a
    battle we can win?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, Senator Lee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to meet with your staff, met with your general
    counsel and your chief of staff. We had a great meeting
    yesterday. That's a great question. I've been doing that for
    much of my career. At the U.S. Attorney's Offices, particularly
    in the Middle District of Florida where I work, you build those
    cases from the mid-level up, and it's a fight that we're always
    going to fight. And I've seen firsthand in cartel-related cases
    and also following the Take Back America memo of Deputy
    Attorney General Blanche, that is going to be a foremost focus
    of the Criminal Division to prosecute--investigate and
    prosecute transnational drug crime.
        As you mentioned, the drug cartels will do anything for
    money. They'll traffic people, they'll traffic fentanyl. They
    will take money from people operating legitimate businesses in
    their space. They will internationally launder money in any way
    possible. They're very good at it. But that's a fight that
    we're never going to give up. We're going to work hand-in-hand
    with the U.S. Attorney's office, the Dangerous Drug Section,
    the Money Laundering Section, and we are going to investigate
    those cases with vigor.
        It's something that I did for many, many years, well over a
    decade in the central part of our State. And it's not just
    buying drugs off the corner. It's not doing the simple car
    stops. Those are minor tools in those investigations. You build
    them by your informant base, by your cooperating defendants, by
    charging minimum mandatories, by flipping defendants,
    proffering them, putting them in the grand jury, seeking
    indictments of other individuals. And you do that from where I
    did it in the Ocala Division, in the Jacksonville Division, in
    the Middle District of Florida. You go south to Miami, you go
    north to Atlanta. Those cases take you to the border. And they
    end in Mexico and Colombia and other countries throughout the
    world. I've worked with OIA to extricate defendants from
    Colombia, from Mexico, and that's a fight that we're never
    going to give up because it's critically important.
        And I've seen that at the other end. I tried a case, one of
    the most difficult cases I tried, a 19-year-old girl in
    Jacksonville who had just graduated from a local high school
    and had enlisted in the United States Army. Before she was
    going to enlist, she had a summer job at a Cracker Barrel
    restaurant. She got in with the wrong crowd. She was dating the
    wrong guy. He and another guy got heroin laced with fentanyl.
    First time drug user, dead. I sat in her parents' house and I
    told her I would bring those to justice. And we didn't just
    make the first case. We made the next level and the next level.
    And we tried the last level of the case. That didn't bring
    their daughter back. But I've seen that at that end, and I've
    seen that at the 100-kilo end, and that's a fight that I'm
    never giving up.
        Senator Lee. It is a strange market, isn't it, that will
    inject into their product another substance that is even more
    deadly than the product they are selling. Ordinarily, wouldn't
    that be a poor market decision to poison your own customer
    base? And if so why does this happen in this industry?
        Mr. Duva. The cartels will sell anything Americans and
    other citizens throughout other countries will take.
    Unfortunately, there's a demand for fentanyl. And you see
    numerous overdoses with the same individuals. It creates a
    horrific toll on them and their families and often leads to
    death. And the cartels don't care. They know there's 365
    million Americans. If they kill some, frankly, that's their
    goal in many instances. But they will traffic whatever
    Americans will take. And that's why, as the Department of
    Justice, the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorney's Offices,
    that has to remain at the forefront of the investigations and
    prosecutions because it's disgusting, it's vile, and it ruins
    people's lives.
        Senator Lee. A few years ago, I spoke to a man whose
    daughter had passed away under similarly tragic circumstances.
    And I asked him a similar question and asked him, you know, why
    would the dealer not see that book of business dry up after
    that? And the answer was stunning. To the effect that there are
    some dealers almost regard it as a plus, almost a selling
    point. Wow, they have got strong product. Have you seen this
    assumption being made?
        Mr. Duva. Hundreds of times, sir.
        Senator Lee. Yes, tragic. Thank you for your willingness to
    serve.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Duva, first of all, thank you for taking the time to
    meet with my staff. I appreciate that.
        I served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. I
    was also in the Public Corruption, Government Fraud Section,
    prosecuted corrupt government officials, fraud cases, an
    espionage case against an FBI agent who spied for the Russians.
    In all the time I was in the office--I was in the office for
    about 6 years, so considerably less time than you were. But
    nevertheless, never had any political figure contact me to tell
    me you should bring a case against so-and-so or you should
    refrain from bringing a case against so-and-so, never had that
    experience. And I worked predominantly under Republican
    Attorneys Generals until I think the end of my tenure in the
    U.S. Attorney's. Was that your experience as well? Did you ever
    have a political figure tell you who you should prosecute or
    that you should refrain from prosecuting someone?
        Mr. Duva. Senator, I enjoyed the meeting with your staff
    yesterday. I see them behind you. We had a great discussion. I
    thank you for that opportunity to be in your office.
        And the answer to your question is no. Nobody's ever told
    me to prosecute a specific person or not to prosecute a
    specific person.
        Senator Schiff. And how would you handle a circumstance
    where someone did tell you to prosecute someone or that,
    conversely, you should drop a case against someone for
    political reasons?
        Mr. Duva. Those who are responsible for my nomination, sir,
    I'm confident that they know my background. I'm confident that
    they know I've never done that and will never do it. And I'm
    confident that they know that I will only follow the facts as
    applied to the law.
        As I said before to Ranking Member Durbin's question, any
    kind of public corruption investigation--and you know this from
    your 6 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central
    District of California--there has to be predication. You can't
    just investigate somebody to investigate somebody. There has to
    be specific and articulable facts that predicate an
    investigation. And I've evaluated that even to start an
    investigation and worked hand-in-hand with the FBI when I've
    done my local public corruption cases, my State-based public
    corruption cases, and the nationwide public corruption cases
    that I've investigated. If you don't have it, you don't start
    it.
        Senator Schiff. You know, Mr.--I heard you make a similar
    response to Senator Durbin in terms of you don't think you will
    be put in that position. And it calls to mind a conversation I
    had with Mr. Blanche prior to his confirmation when I think he
    expressed the same view, I am not going to be put in that
    position. And we have heard that from any number of nominees in
    this Administration. I don't expect I will ever be put in the
    position that you are describing, and yet they almost all have.
    I am grateful for your optimism, but I think it probably is
    only a matter of time before you are put in that position. And
    as my colleagues have indicated, I think the question is how
    will you respond when you are put in that position, not whether
    it will ever come up.
        So let me ask you this. Ever since Watergate, there has
    been a strong norm, guardrail that has maintained the
    independence of the Justice Department from pressure from the
    White House. This was part of the post-Watergate reforms. And
    it served our country remarkably well in insulating the
    Department from political pressure. Presidents over the course
    of years have set general policies. I want to see more
    prosecution of drug cases, or I want to see more prosecution of
    corruption cases, or I want to see more prosecution of illegal
    immigration cases. But since Watergate and until now, we have
    not seen a White House identify individuals they want
    prosecuted. This goes beyond anything I think we saw during
    Watergate.
        So let me ask you as a general matter, what is your view of
    the desirability, I think necessity, of maintaining the
    independence of the Justice Department from political pressure
    emanating from the White House?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator. I look
    forward to--of course my direct report will be Deputy Attorney
    Blanche, who you mentioned. And I've had multiple interactions
    with him. I believe he's doing a great job, and I look forward
    to working with him to do what we've always done. He was an
    AUSA in the Southern District of New York, just like you, just
    like me. And I really don't believe I'll be put in that
    position. When you look at the components of the Criminal
    Division and what we do, these are nationwide impact cases for
    all Americans. Should I be tasked with evaluating a public
    corruption case like you're talking about, whatever that case
    may be, I can assure you I will do it how I've always done it,
    and that will be based on the facts and the law and the
    independent decisions of the Justice Department to make those
    charging decisions. And that's exactly how I'll operate, sir.
        Senator Schiff. Well, Mr. Duva, I appreciate what I would
    describe as the triumph of hope over experience in your
    testimony. I hope your experience is commensurate with your
    hope, but I fear it will be otherwise.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, congratulations on your nominations.
        Mr. Duva, you have been nominated to serve as the assistant
    attorney general for the Criminal Division. The Criminal
    Division sits at the heart of the Department of Justice's
    mission to protect the public. Your nomination comes at a
    moment where Americans are looking for one simple thing, to
    keep our cities safe, to keep our families safe because over
    the last 5 years, we have watched a dangerous pattern take hold
    in American cities. From 2020 to 2025, so-called peaceful
    protests left behind more than $2 billion in property damage.
    Blue cities--Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York,
    St. Louis, Atlanta, and Los Angeles--in some instances, entire
    downtowns burned, police precincts overrun, and small
    businesses destroyed overnight. Nineteen people were killed
    directly during the Black Lives Matter riots and hundreds more
    died indirectly because ambulances couldn't get through and
    police were overwhelmed.
        After the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, anti-Semitic
    mobs took over college campuses, threatening Jewish students,
    seizing buildings, and spreading hate. And it didn't stop
    there. In 2025, coordinated riots once again engulfed Los
    Angeles and Portland before spreading across the country.
        Mr. Duva, do you believe that these were spontaneous riots,
    or do you believe they were organized and financed?
        Mr. Duva. Thank you for the question, Senator Cruz. All of
    those incidents you talked about were a real dark mark on our
    history during that time. I watched it on TV. There is no place
    for rioting, burning buildings, assaulting law enforcement
    officers, and there did seem to be coordination behind those. I
    agree with you. In any case that comes across the Criminal
    Division, we will be evaluating that.
        Again, I answered questions along that lines from Senator
    Britt, whether it's religious violence, violence against law
    enforcement officers, the Jewish community, or what have you.
    We will prosecute those cases to the fullest extent of the law
    and follow the facts where they lead. If they lead to
    coordinated attacks, financing, things of that nature, we will
    evaluate those cases through grand jury investigations and
    prosecute them appropriately.
        Senator Cruz. Excellent. Federal law right now criminalizes
    rioting under 18 USC Section 2101, the Anti-Riot Act, which
    makes it a Federal offense to travel or use interstate
    facilities to incite, organize, promote, or participate in a
    riot. The Biden Department of Justice refused to enforce that
    law. Will you commit under your leadership the Department of
    Justice will once again enforce Section 2101?
        Mr. Duva. Yes, Senator. I think the best way to do that is
    you partner with the U.S. Attorney's Offices in those areas.
    You mentioned Portland, Atlanta, some other cities, and that's
    exactly what I intend to do as the head of the Criminal
    Division, to have relationships with the U.S. attorneys in
    those areas to contact them, let them know we don't just want
    to operate on our own. You do that at times. The U.S.
    Attorneys' Offices do it at times, but it's best when you work
    together, and we will do that to prosecute that statute.
        Senator Cruz. Excellent. Unfortunately, enforcing the Anti-
    Riot Act is not enough to combat the 21st century leftist riots
    that have burned our cities. Like the mafia of old, today's
    agitators are part of a layered enterprise, the foot soldiers
    on the ground and the financiers and masterminds who plan and
    bankroll the operations. The Anti-Riot Act can reach the
    rioters in the street but has difficulty reaching the
    consiglieres and the dons who plan the chaos. That is why
    Congress created RICO, the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
    Organizations Act, to pierce the veil of coordination and hold
    every level of a criminal network accountable. Mr. Duva, RICO
    was one of the most powerful tools ever enacted and helped
    break the back of organized crime in America. Do you agree that
    that same model would be helpful in fighting today's
    politically funded violence?
        Mr. Duva. I do, sir. You have to have evidence of the
    enterprise, and then you have to have the predicated crime set
    forth in the RICO statute and also its sister statute, the
    VICAR statute. Those are tools that I'm well familiar with from
    my time as an AUSA. They were used in our Tampa division,
    they've been used in our Jacksonville division, and they are
    appropriate to evaluate in those circumstances.
        Senator Cruz. Well, and that is precisely the logic behind
    legislation that I have introduced called the Stop FUNDERs Act.
    The Stop FUNDERs Act is simple. It adds rioting as a predicate
    offense under RICO, empowering the prosecutors to follow the
    money, to trace the network, and indict not just the rioter who
    throws the brick but the donor who paid for it and put that
    rioter in that position to carry out that act of violence. It
    would give DOJ the tools to dismantle the financial
    architecture of political violence.
        In your judgment, would adding rioting to the list of
    predicate offenses under RICO aid in enabling the Department of
    Justice to fight and stop political violence and organized
    violence and rioting across the country?
        Mr. Duva. We will take all the tools we can get, Senator. I
    look forward to those discussions with the Office of
    Legislative Affairs and Legal Policy.
        Senator Cruz. Terrific, thank you very much.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Kennedy. Justice Crain, we elect judges in
    Louisiana, do we not?
        Judge Crain. We do.
        Senator Kennedy. And we have elected judges--our people
    have decided to elect judges for a long, long, long time,
    haven't they?
        Judge Crain. As long as I can research, yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Are you responsible for that system of
    choosing judges?
        Judge Crain. Not at all.
        Senator Kennedy. When you run for judge, can you solicit
    campaign contributions?
        Judge Crain. You cannot.
        Senator Kennedy. You have run three times.
        Judge Crain. I have.
        Senator Kennedy. Have you ever solicited a campaign
    contribution?
        Judge Crain. I have not.
        Senator Kennedy. You have to go through a committee, do you
    not?
        Judge Crain. That's correct.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Now, one of my colleagues, not
    Senator Welch, suggested that you live in the left front pocket
    of the oil and gas industry. Is that true?
        Judge Crain. That is absolutely not true, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you live in anybody's left front
    pocket?
        Judge Crain. The only pocket I live in is the rule of law,
    Senator, and I think that my record reflects that.
        Senator Kennedy. That has certainly been my experience. I
    just wanted to clear that up.
        Judge Crain. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Duva, you've heard the expression
    lawfare, have you not?
        Mr. Duva. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. What does that mean to you?
        Mr. Duva. Well, I think lawfare gets to the alleged
    weaponization of the Justice Department and things----
        Senator Kennedy. What does that mean?
        Mr. Duva. Well, it's a term that's been used quite a bit. I
    think it means that the Justice Department becomes the tool of
    a sitting President or the Congress or whoever to do its
    bidding and that only and not follow the law, not follow the
    facts as applied to the law. What we will do is not do that. We
    will do the converse of that.
        Senator Kennedy. Why is that dangerous?
        Mr. Duva. Because it leads to bias. It leads to improper
    prosecution. It leads to messes in courtrooms. There's a reason
    there's a Justice Manual. There's a reason that there is Rule
    6(e) on the----
        Senator Kennedy. I don't want to talk about the manual. I
    want to talk about just basic human decency and common sense.
        Mr. Duva. It also erodes the faith of the justice system in
    our citizens. That is dangerous because it is based on those
    citizens where the end result--the citizens become jurors, and
    we need jurors to have confidence in the Justice Department and
    the prosecutions that it brings to fairly evaluate cases.
        Senator Kennedy. Let me put it this way. Our judicial
    branch doesn't have an army, does it?
        Mr. Duva. It does not.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Our judicial branch at the Federal
    and the State level depends on its legitimacy for enforcement.
    I mean, people have to believe that justice--even though they
    may disagree with the result, people have to believe in the
    integrity of the system, do they not?
        Mr. Duva. They do because as I mentioned with jurors, if
    they don't and they're selected on a jury, they're not going to
    follow the judge's instructions to evaluate the cases based on
    the facts and the law. So it depends on the citizens to help us
    with the end result. And if that's eroded on the front end,
    it's eroded on the back end.
        Senator Kennedy. All right. If I am a candidate for
    district attorney and I run for district attorney, saying if
    you elect me, people, I am going to prosecute Joe Blow, a well-
    known political figure. Is that lawfare?
        Mr. Duva. It is. That's inappropriate.
        Senator Kennedy. That undermines the integrity of the
    criminal justice system, doesn't it?
        Mr. Duva. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. That suggests that justice isn't blind,
    doesn't it?
        Mr. Duva. It sure does.
        Senator Kennedy. Now, you know, nobody is blameless here. I
    remember when this nonsense started under President Biden, and
    I remember thinking they have unleashed spirits they cannot
    control. This has got to stop.
        Now, I am a United States Senator. I am also on the
    Appropriations Committee. I even have influence over your
    budget, don't I?
        Mr. Duva. You do, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And let's suppose I tweet out, I am really
    mad at Joe Blow, and I think the Justice Department ought to
    prosecute him. Do I have the right to do that under the First
    Amendment? I am not asking you whether it is wise. I am asking
    you whether I have the right.
        Mr. Duva. You do. You can tweet--as long as it's non-
    violent. You can tweet whatever thought you want.
        Senator Kennedy. You have the right to ignore me, don't
    you?
        Mr. Duva. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. All right. Let me ask you about being a
    prosecutor. I have never been a prosecutor. As a prosecutor,
    you have a moral obligation to yourself and to the criminal
    justice system not to bring a criminal prosecution unless you
    think the defendant is guilty. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Duva. Yes. In the Justice Manual, you have to have the
    reasonable----
        Senator Kennedy. I don't care about the manual.
        Mr. Duva [continuing]. Probability of conviction.
        Senator Kennedy. I am talking about common human decency.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Duva. Yes, you have to know you have it.
        Senator Kennedy. Is that a principle that you agree with?
        Mr. Duva. 100 percent.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you not only have to believe
    that the defendant is guilty, you have to believe that you can
    prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?
        Mr. Duva. You do. You have to have the facts. Without the
    facts, you have nothing.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is that a principle that you
    possess?
        Mr. Duva. I do, and that's how I've operated for 18 years.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you also have to believe, do you
    not, that the prosecution is in the public interest? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Duva. You do.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Now, if one of your superiors came
    to you--well, let me answer the question for you for how I
    would do it. If one of my superiors came to me and said, look,
    you got to prosecute this case, and I looked at it, and either
    I didn't believe that the defendant was guilty, or I didn't
    believe I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or I
    thought it was not in the public interest because it would
    undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, I would
    resign.
        Mr. Duva. You would decline the matter.
        Senator Kennedy. Sir?
        Mr. Duva. You would decline the matter, for sure.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. And if they told me--if my superior
    said, look, Kennedy, you know, what planet did you just
    parachute in from? You don't have a choice. I am your boss. I
    am telling you to do it. I would resign. How about you?
        Mr. Duva. I have no problem doing that. I would first just
    say, we're not doing this case, and here's all the reasons, and
    the discussion could go from there.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And if you were told to do it or
    quit, what would you do?
        Mr. Duva. I'd quit.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Would you ever advise a client not
    to follow a Federal court order?
        Mr. Duva. No, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. I appreciate that. I appreciate you not
    qualifying it. It is okay to disagree with a Federal judge
    ruling, isn't it?
        Mr. Duva. I often have.
        Senator Kennedy. Yep. It is okay to appeal it.
        Mr. Duva. Absolutely. We have an appellate section. It's
    one of the best sections in the Criminal Division.
        Senator Kennedy. Within the bounds of legal ethics, it is
    okay to criticize it, isn't it?
        Mr. Duva. Yes, internally.
        Senator Kennedy. But you got to follow it, don't you?
        Mr. Duva. You do, absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. Because that is called the rule of law,
    isn't it?
        Mr. Duva. It is, and without that, you have anarchy and no
    confidence in the Justice Department.
        Senator Kennedy. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the
    frank answers.
        Mr. Duva. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. All right, gentlemen, this hearing is
    concluded. I got to read this, folks. Thank you to the nominees
    for your testimony today. Written questions for the record may
    be submitted until October 29 at 5 p.m.
        Justice Crain, how many times has Judge Crain, your dad,
    texted you during this hearing?
        Judge Crain. Quite a number of texts and phone calls.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. I served with Justice Crain's father, just
    one of the best judges I have ever seen.
        Thank you for your patience today, and thanks to all the
    audience members for sitting through this.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg62746/pdf/CHRG-
        119shrg
        62746-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Alliance for Justice (AFJ), Opposition to Crain, statement.......     2

     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Opposition to
        Crain, statement..............................................     4

     National Women's Law Center (the ``Law Center''), Opposition to
        Crain, statement..............................................     6

     People For the American Way, Opposition to Crain, statement......    12

                                  [all]